Template:Did you know nominations/John J. Beckley

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

John J. Beckley

(

)

... that John J. Beckley, the first Librarian of Congress, came to America as an indentured child servant?

Source: Berkeley, Edmund S.; Berkeley, Dorothy S. (1975). "The First Librarian of Congress: John Beckley". The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress. 32 (2). JSTOR 29781617. pages 434–435

Berkeley, Edmund; Berkeley, Dorothy Smith (1973). John Beckley: Zealous Partisan in a Nation Divided. p. 4

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter

5x expanded by Generalissima (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 113 past nominations.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC).

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I reviewed this article for its GA nomination. Everything is still is line and fine for DYK. However, I would like to propose this hook to you @Generalissima: "... that John J. Beckley, the first Librarian of Congress, leaked Alexander Hamilton's extramarital affair to the press? Jon698 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jon698: My apologies. This is a good review, but per WP:DYKRR you can't review a DYK nomination if you've reviewed it for GA, so this will need a second opinion. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the hook is interesting enough and is well-cited, with reliable sources used. It also just passed GA and the user has done their QPQ, so passed.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)